The Morning Star has published an interview with statistics expert Nick Dilworth about the DWP’s release of death statistics for incapacity benefits claimants. Some of the information needs correcting but this is an excellent article and should be publicised. The Tories want this sidelined – let’s keep it in the public eye.
“The media were misled over the right figures with the DWP issuing a wholly inadequate explanation. Most settled on 2,600 dead, which is a great disappointment to the real victims. They would be entitled to assume the number could be far higher given the scope for many simply not appearing because the DWP failed to provide a comprehensive and all-inclusive explanation.”
It’s important to remember those who’ve had a family member die and who wanted to hear the wider picture. Yet as Dilworth says, “bloggers were also reaching different findings, some making out there was no story while others implied it was a national outrage. Obfuscating the proof was what IDS wanted to achieve, with distraction being a key part of his strategy.”
Dilworth, unlike many commentators, refused to be drawn into this game, instead taking a step back to consider in depth what the figures revealed. He came to six key conclusions:
– The DWP data only related to claimants whose incapacity benefit or employment and support allowance ended because they died. A total of 81,140 people on either benefit died between December 2011 and February 2014.
It should be explained that this means the statistics do not include people who died after their benefit had been taken away from them – even though the Freedom of Information request to which this was a response (written by me) specifically asked for the total number of deaths of people who had had a claim during this period. In some cases, people died several weeks, or months, afterwards but the DWP decision may still be to blame for the death.
– The data lacked clarity over whether the correct total for those who died with a “fit for work” finding on their claim was 2,650 or 4,010. As a result, mainstream media issued press articles and headlines which deflected the serious issue raised regarding the fact people had died while deemed “fit for work.”
Again, this figure only relates to those whose claim ended because they died. Mr Dilworth goes on to mention the deaths of many other people who died outside the extremely narrow time period used by the DWP in its figures.
– Readers of the statistics were thrown a red herring by the DWP’s poorly worded explanation. As a result it was wrongly reported that people had died within two and six weeks of being found “fit for work.” The reference to between two and six weeks related only to aligning the date of death with the closure of the deceased person’s claim.
– Figures of between 2,650 and 4,010 only relate to people who had appealed. In 1,360 “completed appeal cases” this can only mean people who had successfully contested a “fit for work” finding, and then subsequently died thereafter. In the case of those who’d not had their appeal heard, the inevitable conclusion can only be they were still within the appeal system at the time of their death.
This is inaccurate. The figures related to people who had contested a “fit for work” finding, but we don’t know whether they were successful or not. If they died, and then their claim ended, then either outcome is possible; there’s nothing to stop a person who appealed unsuccessfully from dying due to the stress of the process (which would tend to indicate that the outcome of their appeal was wrong, also).
– The figures omitted those who’d been found “fit for work” and then either came off benefits or were claiming an entirely different benefit. This left a considerable question mark over the usefulness of the statistics for those who were owed real answers. These were not provided by the generalised issue or age-standardised mortality figures — which excluded large numbers of claimants who made more than one claim for the same benefit (repeat claims were specifically excluded).
– It can reasonably be assumed that a large number of those found fit for work would have gone on to claim jobseekers allowance (JSA). What is known from separate Office for National Statistics (ONS) figures is that between December 2011 and February 2014, 7,645,130 people came off JSA — of which only 3,241,885 found work. An incredible 2,402,755 are recorded as “failed to sign on.” It leaves considerable scope for anyone dying not to be included in the figures at all because the jobcentre won’t have any reason as to why their claim ended.
Just so. And there’s no reason to expect everybody who was kicked off ESA to have claimed JSA because it a condition of claiming JSA that you have to be, in fact, fit for work – and many of those whose ESA had been removed would have failed the test.
Dilworth says: “One such person who won’t be included in the DWP’s ‘fit for work’ death statistics is Michael O’Sullivan (aged 60.) He died after having to claim JSA after being refused employment support allowance. Tragically Mr O’Sullivan took his own life after being found ‘fit for work’ twice by the DWP’s heartless back-to-work regime.
“A coroner has confirmed the suicide verdict is to be directly linked to the work capability assessment process. It is astonishing so many of the media articles associated with deaths and these tests cite suicide, stress or some other strong indicator that the deceased was seriously affected by the decision on their claim.
“Invariably these show all too often people are attempting to navigate the DWP’s bureaucratic appeal process and so it is tragic that in some of these cases the unfairness of the ‘fit for work’ decision is only corrected at a posthumous appeal, by which time it’s sadly too late.”
He continues: “Other death cases which can in some way be related to fit for work findings include those of Jacqueline Harris, 53; Ms DE, in her late 50s, who was the subject of a very detailed study by the Scottish Mental Health Commission; David Barr, 28; Colin Traynor, 29; Graham Shawcross, 63; Shaun Pilkington, 58; Edward Jacques, 47; Tim Salter, 53; and David O’Mar, 58.
“These 10 deaths are striking in that they almost all relate to people who have not only been found fit for work but have also had to battle with the DWP to reverse a decision which they thought was unfair.
“IDS, when speaking with the Press Association, declared his overriding objective in these reforms was all about ‘saving lives.’ Clearly that’s not happening: it beggars belief that a duff set of statistics is enough to answer the deep probing questions demanded of these perilous reforms. He owes everyone a decent explanation, particularly those who have lost someone dear, and still have no answer as to what it was that went wrong.”
A suicide in a family or a death triggered by intense pressure and stress can permanently scar loved ones. These are the people who deserve to hear the truth, not simply data within such tight parameters as to be virtually meaningless.
“It’s very much IDS’s modus operandi for the DWP,” Dilworth says, “to respond to a potential outrage by throwing people off the scent, ensuring the media divert attention from the blatant, systemic failure in IDS’s department. However, now we know how much data has been withheld, we must demand the full figures are released.”
Join the Vox Political Facebook page.
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:
Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.
Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:
The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here: